Experimentation and some preliminary results ( @DeepSOIC @abdullah ) on scaling up the angle constraints to size constraints ... No hard promise, but I'll likely round all up next weekend and send a pull request for you to review and maybe merge. Apologies, fate hasn't been kind enough to allow me ...

I used the DeriVector2 arithmetic to transform ConstraintL2LAngle and ConstraintP2PAngle from radians to size/dimensions errors Now, if you somehow include the lengths of these lines into the error function, the solver will see that reducing the length of the lines is also a perfectly valid way of ...

Experimentation and some preliminary results ( DeepSOIC abdullah ) on scaling up the angle constraints to size constraints So far: "modernized" a bit of the code (using hypot instead of sqrt(x^2, y^2), introducing lerp - based on std::fma - instead on linCombi, ...) filled-in what I saw as...

On the other CAD, with relative precision, i worked before, all elements under the tolerances vanishes. Ugh... they may leave some gaps into a poly-curve that is supposed to be continuous/closed => topological damage. Actually, it may happen even with a CAD based on the absolute precision if the pr...

A cheap criterion to stop the iterations is on the line of "when the rate of convergence is smaller than a limit" - on the ground of "diminishing returns - too much effort to squeeze the improvements in the least significant bits". I have an impression that usually, if the solve...

Ideally, we should derive solution_accuracy of solved sketch from constraint errors, and write out shape tolerances as something like 3*(solution_accuracy). I'm not sure if it's possible for sketches with remaining degrees of freedom, though. 1e-7 mm is not hard-wired into OCC, it's just a default ...

Then altering the tolerance is a better path to follow. Like in: working with relative tolerances. But then again, neither this is a silver bullet - that's just the nature of the beast. If one really needs 1e-10 absolute precision, the only way to obtain this in more cases is to perform the computa...

That is to say: in the unit (1.0) range, the absolute imprecision of going through square/sqrt is around 1e-8; >>> sqrt(pi)**2 - pi -4.440892098500626e-16 seems like you're about 5 orders of magnitude off >>> def f(a) : ... return (math.sqrt(math.pi) + a)*(math.sqrt(math.pi) - a) + a*a -math.pi ......

Personally, when if comes to hypot/square, I see anything beyond double(1e-8) relative precision as questionable. this is an absolute comparison, relative precision is mostly irrelevant. Absolute comparison is much worse, as it scales with the magnitude of the terms involved. That is to say: in the...

Question - is the success condition of the iterative solving absolute or relative to the sketch size? Does the solver stop once an absolute precision has been reached or is the precision relative to sketch size? it is hypot(err1, err2, ...) < convergence (convergence = 1e-10 by default; err1 and er...